Oh just realised it had already been checked.. Sorry Auld Soul.. :-)
Why was the "Manking Search For God" publication never a study book?
It was studied before (at least once) during Tuesday night book study where I went.
lol... when I was about to give a reply I got distracted by incoming mail... everything has already been said...
You sure it wasn't the "The Bible - God's Word or Mans?" book you looked at?
I'm pretty sure I never studied the Mankind book.
I am pretty sure it was never studied. One brother commented to me that the society probably thought it wise for the brothers not to dwell too much on what others believe. The book is okay for the ministry and bringing others in, but might actually harm the brothers if they study it in depth. The ironic thing is that the brother did not say this to me in a disapproving tone. Rather he thought it was prudent the society should "protect" us in this way. It just shows you the spirit of utter dependence that the Witness mindset breeds, especially among thoughtful Witnesses. It leads to all sorts of distortions of the mind.
Could it have been different in Spanish?
I remember it!
Maybe I just read it.
I could be losing it.
No that book was never studied at the BS. I was actually looking forward to studying that one.
According to the CDROM the mankind's book came out in 1990. The book study schedule was
April 89 Rev Book
June 90 Trinity Brochure
Sept 90 The Bible - God's word or man's book
Feb 91 Blood brochure
March 91 Rev book (again)
Oct 92 Greatest Man book
Nov 93 Family life book
May 94 Happiness - how to find it.
Jan 95 Rev book (again!!!!)
April 96 Knowledge book
I really thought we had studied the mankind's search book, guess the old memory's playing tricks.
IT HAS NEVER - repaet NEVER been studied in the Bookgroup. If you still do not believe me , I will post al lKMs on line. If you recall sudy schedules of publications are always published in the Kingdom Ministry. I have a dam good memory and was an elder at the time - this has never been studied. My copy would be marked - it is not.
So why do you think it wasn't studied?